Re: slow video - X
This is a discussion on Re: slow video - X ; Man,
I can suggest you something that you can try with 24 bit colors.
You can make these specific modifications in your /etc/X11/XF86Config
file.
Open it in any editor as root and follow these steps:
1. Change the driver from ...
-
Re: slow video
Man,
I can suggest you something that you can try with 24 bit colors.
You can make these specific modifications in your /etc/X11/XF86Config
file.
Open it in any editor as root and follow these steps:
1. Change the driver from "nv" to "nvidia" in Device section.
2.In the Module section, make sure you have:
Load "glx"
3.You should also remove the following lines:
Load "dri"
Load "GLcore"
4. Add these lines in Device section:
VideoRam "WHATEVER IS YOUR CARDS VRAM IN KB"
Option "NvAGP" "3"
Option "NoLogo" "yes"
Option "RenderAccel" "yes"
Option "DigitalVibrance" "128"
5. Change the "depth" to 24 in Screen Section.
6. Also make sure that you enable swap.
You can check if it is running properly by issuing the command:--
swapon -s
If it gives you the priority as -1 and used as 0. it sure isn't
working.
Change the priority to the max "32767" by changing the option
Defaults in etc/fstab to
"pri=32767" without qoutes in swap partition section. Its only going to
help.
7. Restart in runlevel 5 and then try to use the glxgears.
I believe its gonna rock.........
If it doesn't post it back and i will get to it again.
Best of Luck.
-
Re: slow video
In article ,
Cyrus A Virus wrote:
>
> 1. Change the driver from "nv" to "nvidia" in Device section.
Already done.
> 2.In the Module section, make sure you have:
> Load "glx"
Was.
> 3.You should also remove the following lines:
> Load "dri"
Commented out.
> Load "GLcore"
Wasn't there.
> 4. Add these lines in Device section:
> VideoRam "WHATEVER IS YOUR CARDS VRAM IN KB"
I'd get that info from XFree86 anyhow. Since it autodetects the amount (in
this case "(--) NVIDIA(0): VideoRAM: 16384 kBytes"), isn't it rather
pointless to list it?
> Option "NvAGP" "3"
What does that do?
> Option "NoLogo" "yes"
Good idea. I KNOW it's an Nvidia chip. I don't have to be told every time.
> Option "RenderAccel" "yes"
> Option "DigitalVibrance" "128"
>
> 5. Change the "depth" to 24 in Screen Section.
Was.
> 6. Also make sure that you enable swap.
Turned on, but I don't use much of it:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 775172 329596 445576 0 30068 186700
-/+ buffers/cache: 112828 662344
Swap: 401616 40496 361120
> You can check if it is running properly by issuing the command:--
> swapon -s
> If it gives you the priority as -1 and used as 0. it sure isn't
> working.
Well, I've seen swap not get used, in a machine with enough RAM.
Filename Type Size Used Priority
/dev/hda2 partition 401616 40496 -1
> Change the priority to the max "32767" by changing the option
> Defaults in etc/fstab to
> "pri=32767" without qoutes in swap partition section. Its only going to
> help.
Does the priority matter when there's only one swap partition/file?
> 7. Restart in runlevel 5 and then try to use the glxgears.
Woohoo, xdm works!
5166 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1033.200 FPS
5690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1138.000 FPS
5695 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1139.000 FPS
5692 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1138.400 FPS
5695 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1139.000 FPS
Not too shabby...
--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
CANCER: The position of Jupiter says that you should spend the
rest of the week face down in the mud. Try not to shove a roll of
duct tape up your nose when taking your driver's test. -- Weird Al
-
Re: slow video
In article ,
Hactar wrote:
> In article ,
> Cyrus A Virus wrote:
>
> > 7. Restart in runlevel 5 and then try to use the glxgears.
Now I don't know why it would care, but Opera segfaults when I'm in runlevel
5. When I log in in text mode and then run "startx", it works. Got me.
> 5166 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1033.200 FPS
> 5690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1138.000 FPS
> 5695 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1139.000 FPS
> 5692 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1138.400 FPS
> 5695 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1139.000 FPS
>
> Not too shabby...
I was wrong -- that was in 16bpp. In 24bpp it's about half as fast:
2156 frames in 5.0 seconds = 431.200 FPS
2737 frames in 5.0 seconds = 547.400 FPS
2780 frames in 5.0 seconds = 556.000 FPS
2779 frames in 5.0 seconds = 555.800 FPS
2770 frames in 5.0 seconds = 554.000 FPS
For that kind of difference, 16bpp looks better...
--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
ARIES: The look on your face will be priceless when you find that 40lb
watermelon in your colon. Trade toothbrushes with an albino dwarf, then
give a hickey to Meryl Streep. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_